No. of Recommendations: 3
The Court has found one excuse, or another, to refuse to hear a challenge to the clearly unconstitutional "God" phrase in the pledge, for decades. So I don't hold out any hope for a reasonable decision on Presidential "unitary executive" power.
from the net sifter...I find the court's insistence that forcing people to utter a deity is "patriotic" amazing. They seem to be saying that, even though the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion, the US is a theocracy, so forced religious exercise is "patriotic".
Yes, the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has been challenged numerous times in court on
Establishment Clause grounds (separation of church and state), most notably by atheist Michael Newdow, but the Supreme Court dismissed the main case on a technicality (standing), and lower courts have largely upheld the phrase as constitutional, viewing it as ceremonial patriotism rather than a religious endorsement.
Key Court Cases & Rulings:
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004): The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge by Michael Newdow, an atheist father, holding he lacked legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter, thus avoiding a ruling on the phrase's constitutionality.
Newdow v. U.S. Congress (9th Circuit Appeals Court, 2002 & 2010): An initial ruling found the phrase unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court overturned it on standing; a later 9th Circuit decision upheld it, citing Congressional intent for patriotism.
American Humanist Association Challenges: The AHA also challenged the Pledge, but state courts (like Massachusetts' highest court in 2014) and federal courts rejected these efforts, affirming the Pledge's patriotic nature
Courts' Reasoning:
Lower courts have consistently found the phrase's purpose is to inspire patriotism, not endorse religion, aligning with the Supreme Court's distinction between ceremonial deism (acceptable) and governmental religious endorsement (unconstitutional).
The Supreme Court has essentially preserved the practice by dismissing cases on procedural grounds, leaving the phrase intact for over 20 years despite ongoing challenges
Steve
